Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... -religion/Basically Ham has tweeted in highly negative terms about the recent 'Cosmos' science TV series which he thinks should not be shown in public schools because it is 'imposing' and 'indoctrinating' in an anti-God 'religion' and 'undermining' Christianity. Understandably three bloggers out there - Sensuous Curmudgeon has also now commented in a more factual, if ironic, manner - were annoyed by this (imho most of them either missed the real issues with Ham's behaviour or they did not properly engage with all of Ham's comments on Twitter and Facebook and did not realise that his words were not 100% lies; I've elaborated further at the Hemant Mehta and James McGrath blogs). (Those Ham tweets and facebook comments are now handily collected together for us on Ham's blog.) However, I cannot deny the bloggers' their right and perhaps duty to stand up to yet another dishonest Twitter bigot.

Yesterday I sent the following as an email to assorted YECs and anti-YECs:

Ham hypocritically claims to 'love' 'science'. But he hates scientists. And calls their theories 'lies'. And his global flood stuff - thrust upon young kids - is pure indoctrination (unlike that TV programme even if it did mention 'revering' stars at one point). No rational and honest person could deny that Ham and his staff blatantly indoctrinate kids that 'science' (his conclusion-led dogma that there was a global flood ergo fossils 'confirm' this as a 'fact') 'confirms' the Bible as literal infallible 'history'.

I've also listened to Ham videos where he indoctrinates kids about the 'reality' of a recent global flood or about 'recent' 'post-flood' dinosaur extinction and where he proclaims to kids and adults that scientists are 'stupid'.

Had the TV programme (I've read reviews including ones at the AiG website) REALLY been as Ham alleges (attacking Christianity and pushing a contrary RELIGION) then I probably I should have quoted Ham's words in full in my email ie written that Ham was railing against "indoctrination in an anti-God religion to undermine Christianity". But the programme did not do that and it was probably (without being able to watch all episodes) not indoctrinating at all. Thus I was fully justified in referring to him railing against 'indoctrination' (and being two faced since he personally uses indoctrination tactics when visiting churches and addressing youngsters). Had I been a bit less considerate, I really should have put the word 'indoctrination' in quotes in my original comments.

For Ham ANY robust science theories that are not suitably biblical are by definition 'lies' and 'indoctrination'. What an absolute bigot. Yet - when he presents his own beliefs - he feels entitled not merely to present what the Bible says (which would be OK) but also to falsely indoctrinate young kids that physical evidence merely 'confirms' Genesis. Even when it clearly does no such thing (fossils confirm that animals and plants have died in the unseen past and some are now extinct) and he also uses misleading and fallacious reasoning. Ham indulges in crude indoctrination whilst falsely labelling reams of science theories and findings as 'indoctrination'. Which I find pretty despicable.

(1)https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... y-beliefs/"Far from being the dumb brutes that they were depicted as for years, increasing evidence shows that Neanderthals were just as intelligent—and human—as we are. Of course, this comes as no surprise to those who start with the Bible and recognize that Neanderthals are descendants of Adam and Eve, and Noah, just like us."Except that biblical Christians in the past would never have expected neanderthal humans from reading Genesis, whether before or after a global flood. And never mind the fact that if neanderthals were able to light a fire the theory of evolution is still alive and well. Yet more desperate stuff from a failed belief system (young earth creationism not Christianity in general).AiG have FAILED to answer my recent questions about whether neanderthals - if they were alive within the past 5,000 years as claimed by AiG despite a total lack of supporting evidence - had any written language (like our species did at the time). But you will not be surprised that AiG REFUSE to answer reasonable questions that they take exception to (because the questions directly challenge their rigid dogma).

(2)https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... -our-eyes/Ken Ham failing to deal with real evidential reasons why most scientists believe in evolution, including evolution beyond so-called separate kinds eg from dinosaurs to birds (you will be aware that YECs always deny the evidence that any dinosaurs ever possessed bird-like feathers). And instead seeking to exploit and criticise a news article merely for quoting the phrase 'evolution story' as used by a real researcher. It's more cheap 'faith building' propaganda from Answers in Genesis! By the way, if you forget about science and direct observation, where does the Bible say ANYTHING about wolves and coyotes being able to interbreed successfully? The Bible is not a science textbook."“species” is a man-made term based on a man-made classification system".And young earth creationists reject the validity of the concept because they are anti-science, and because they have (in order to sound plausible in their attacks upon science and reason) to reject the clear impression given by the BIBLE ie Genesis 6:19-20 that pairs of EVERY created species of land-based animal must have been able to board and survive upon Noah's ark."In Genesis, God tells us that He created organisms to reproduce “according to their kinds” (the Hebrew word min). This phrase is repeated over and over in Genesis 1."Well, Genesis 1 describes original acts of creation of the first generation of animals and plants according to 'kinds'. It includes a brief reference to plant seeds and fruit, and then it uses the phrase "be fruitful and increase in number" a couple of times. It does not say "be fruitful and increase in number according to your kind". Ham's statement is an inference not a direct teaching from Genesis (though of course Genesis does IMPLY fixity of species/kinds and says NOTHING about evolution/diversification 'within kinds' post-flood even though YECs claim such has happened). Ham of course has a science rejecting (evolution denying) agenda so he will be tempted to make the Bible say things that it does not actually say."Research always confirms God’s Word!"More lying. In this case he's not talking about bogus YEC claims. He's falsely claiming that real, observed - limited - hybridisation of wolves and coyotes (also domestic dogs which HUMANS almost certainly bred from wolves) 'confirms' the Bible and also somehow disproves evolution (for Ham 'disproving' evolution would amount to 'confirming' the Bible).

(3)https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the ... n=ageearth"that autonomous human reasoning [concluding from nature that earth is very old and cannot possibly be just 6,000 years old] blatantly denies what God’s Word clearly tells us". Answers in Genesis clearly prefer irrationality to reason and science. "Either the rock record is the evidence of millions of years, or it is largely the evidence of Noah’s Flood. It can’t be both." Except that even if there was a 'recent global flood' - which is sheer fiction - Earth could still be extremely old (a flood based on the Genesis account taking place less than 5,000 years ago would not create a huge geological record nor would it fully obliterate the fossil record of all the creatures that went extinct many thousands or millions of years ago). And what about the wider universe where there was no biblical flood?"We commonly hear scientific-sounding arguments that the earth and universe are billions of years old. We are told radiometric dating shows that certain rocks formed billions of years ago. We are told that starlight from distant galaxies takes billions of years to arrive on earth. Do these arguments stand up to scrutiny?" They do."The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy."Except that desperate young earth creationists have persuaded almost nobody else (not even fellow evangelical Christians who might like to believe this) that there is 'plenty of evidence' pointing to an only 6,000 year old Earth. Many YECs were indoctrinated into YEC-ism as church-going kids rather than being scientifically persuaded at a later stage by 'examining both sides'. "There is nothing in observational science that contradicts a young universe as clearly taught in the only 100% reliable record in the Bible!" Ken Ham lying again, on his facebook page a few hours ago ,when referencing this article. Though I expect he is also 'lying to himself' by devising a secret, and meaninglessly narrow, definition of the phrase 'observational science' by which - if you also accept the special pleading put out by AiG about topics like radiometric dating and extremely distant starlight reaching Earth in less than 10,000 years - his statement will make SOME sort of sense.

So much lying nonsense for the sake of the Christian gospel.

As they block my emails, despite its length I'm also posting this [recently sent email] at the BCSE community forum which some YECs look at.

Of course AiG will dismiss all of the above and fail to deal with it. Because they hate reason (whenever reason disproves Genesis literalism). But I still think YECs should be reminded of everything that they refuse to accept as valid because it is deemed 'unbiblical' or 'in the unseen past'. Even if almost none of them will ever change their mind about anything.

Someone suggested to CMI "Your thinking starts from the premise that the Bible is literally true, an “eyewitness” account as you have it...I guess the light we see from distant stars is also a maximum of 6000 yeays [sic] old!"

Their 'answer'? "Third, any cosmologist will tell you that clocks in different locations run at different rates. GPS satellites have to take this into account to work properly. Creation cosmology uses that fact to explain how we can see light from stars that are billions of light-years away if the universe is only 6,000 years old. See our astronomy and astrophysics Q&A."Mendacious misleading utter garbage.Because that piece of lies took me to this:http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf"According to GR, if the universe has a boundary and centre, then there can be net gravitational effects on a cosmological scale and these can affect the flow of time during its history. Depending on the how the universe was created, clocks could have run at different rates on Earth compared to other parts of the universe."Or there's this claim about (unproven) cosmological general relativity:"With this approach, an acceleration (increasing velocity) of the expansion of space, such as could be expected on the fourth day of the creation week, would have profound implications for time during that period. Time dilation results, but not due to a net gravitational effect—it is due to the enormous accelerated stretching of the fabric of space. This means that on Day 4, the clocks in the outer reaches of the expanding universe were running very fast compared to clocks on Earth. This allows time for distant starlight from the galaxies being created on the fourth day to travel to Earth and be visible to Adam and Eve".

Hey presto a 6,000 year old universe (as measured by God apparently - what FOOLS all those scientists are) is 'back on the table'. Thanks to deliberate mendacity about General Relativity. Young Earth Creationists have got nothing. It's all made up. As Noah's Ark Zoo Farm (different creationists) report:"We object to creationism because it is little more than a dogmatic reaction against Darwinism ...".See: http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/about